Dell Wasn't Joking About That 28-Inch Sub-$1000 4K Monitor; It's Only $699

Post by jowiar » Thu, Jan 09, 2014, 12:35 AM UTC

steveridout wrote: post #131

300bps wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've shown my retina iPad and MacBook to a few people who don't get the fuss at all...Myself, I think the screens are amazing Over a decade ago, I bought one of those Sharper Image ion air purifiers. I told all my friends how great it was - totally silent but really cleaned the air and left it with a fresh scent. About a year later I started reading scientific assessments and reviews of it. It in fact did nothing to…

I know what you mean, that it's easy to fool yourself and fall into marketing traps. But in this case of monitor resolution, there is a very noticeable difference (to me at least) between current desktop monitors and retina ones. If in 5 years some company tries to push the trend even further with 8K extreme retina or something like that I'm sure I'll be on your side, but for now, please, bring on the 4K desktop disp…

Post by photojosh » Thu, Jan 09, 2014, 1:00 AM UTC

timr wrote: post #180

jbri wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> again, maybe I'm getting old, but to see the pixels on my current screen I have to get my nose almost right up to the display, which I'm never going to do The point of going to higher and higher resolutions is that eventually, you don't see the pixels. Pixels are an implementation detail, what you're really wanting to see is the image they represent.

Gee, thanks. All these years, and I've been looking at the pixels and not noticing the image! You've changed my life! ahem... Condescending explanations aside, you know that there's a limit to the human eye's ability to resolve detail, right? We can resolve up to about 150ppi at 2ft. The Apple Cinema Display is at 109ppi. There's room for improvement, but not 60% more...

Post by jimmaswell » Thu, Jan 09, 2014, 1:22 AM UTC

mortenjorck wrote: post #149

Something to keep in mind is that this is effectively a Windows monitor, not a Mac one. The reason for this is PPI: Most Apple displays are in the 100-110 PPI range, with Retina Display Macs doubling that to 220 PPI. At 28", a 3840 x 2160 panel has a PPI of 157, which sits right between Retina and non-Retina densities. This means that on a Mac, you’ll have to use it one of two ways: Either at 1x, where the higher PPI…

Post by devindotcom » Thu, Jan 09, 2014, 2:01 AM UTC

bluedino wrote: post #190

Jongseong wrote: post #118

Such high resolution displays may sound like overkill for many people, but improved resolution is a big deal to those who care about screen typography—specifically, in layman's terms, about how fonts look on screen. When displaying letters in small sizes, the pixel grid becomes increasingly coarse and the result often becomes ugly and less readable. To prevent this, "hinting" instructions need to be built into the fo…

Even better, you don't have to do subpixel hinting at 'retina' resolutions.

Post by timr » Thu, Jan 09, 2014, 2:12 AM UTC

photojosh wrote: post #213

timr wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gee, thanks. All these years, and I've been looking at the pixels and not noticing the image! You've changed my life! ahem... Condescending explanations aside, you know that there's a limit to the human eye's ability to resolve detail, right? We can resolve up to about 150ppi at 2ft. The Apple Cinema Display is at 109ppi. There's room for improvement, but not 60% more...

Yes, but when you're actually working on a hi-PPI display, you can then lean in to view more detail, rather than zooming in. Much like we inspect things in the real world. As a photographer, this means a great deal. I can verify the sharpness of an image (a key component in deciding whether to keep it or chuck it) at a glance. Saves a lot of time.